Traditions of Conscience

Traditions of Conscience

I admire the gumption of Richard J. Regan, S.J., who attempts and pretty well succeeds at making sense of the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the First Amendment’s free exercise and establishment clauses. Those few words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” have generated more judicial ink than any other part of our Constitution.

Advertisement

Unfortunately, for an entity whose appointed task is to make sense of all these judicial opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court itself has recognized that its First Amendment decisions are far from consistent. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his concurrence in the Elk Grove School District (pledge of allegiance) case, “Our jurisprudential confusion has led to results that can only be described as silly. In County of Allegheny...for example, the Court distinguished between a crèche on the one hand and an 18-foot Chanukah menorah placed near a 45-foot Christmas tree on the other. The Court held that the first display violated the Establishment Clause but that the second did not.”

Silly it may be, but it is still the law, as decreed by the highest court in the land. Regan wades into this swamp of self-declared judicial silliness in The American Constitution and Religion, which is his compelling attempt to make sense of things. It is a credit to Regan’s encompassing scholarship and analytical ability that he by and large succeeds at this task. Regan establishes in his first chapter how the American constitutional regime works, explaining that it has been a judicial function ever since Chief Justice Marshall established the principle in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to say what the Constitution is. Well and good, but who prevents the justices of our Supreme Court from rewriting the Constitution in the guise of interpreting it, or, as Regan asks, “Who will watch over the guardians?”

Great question, but as Regan implies, without saying, the answer is no one. True, Congress can write new laws when the Supreme Court renders a terrible decision, and Regan explains that Congress did precisely that with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act after Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith eviscerated the constitutional protection that churches and religious people had always enjoyed under the compelling interest test. (Regan is too kind to say it was a terrible decision.) But when it is a matter of constitutional interpretation, the court will always have the last word. They are, as the justices themselves have said, not final because they are infallible, but infallible because they are final.

Certainly, as Regan explains in his jaunt through the history of the state aid to religious school cases in Chapter Four, there was for too long a complete lack of consistency in the court’s jurisprudence on this, as on many other First Amendment issues. Regan writes, “On the one hand...the Court, by distinguishing the secular and religious functions of church-affiliated colleges and universities, has upheld direct aid to the colleges and universities for the construction of buildings exclusively devoted to secular uses. On the other hand, the Court, by failing to separate the secular and religious functions of church-related elementary and secondary schools, has disallowed direct aid to the schools for teaching secular subjects. On the one hand, the Court has upheld lending secular textbooks to students attending parochial schools. On the other hand, the Court...disallowed lending other secular instructional material [maps and globes] to such students.”

It was in the context of aid to religious schools that the court came up with the well named Lemon test (Regan consistently calls it the Schempp-Lemon test) that prevented most aid to religiously affiliated schools. They did this on the constitutional theory that the steps required to make sure that neutral aid did not go for sectarian purposes would involve the government in an impermissible entanglement with religion that would prevent the aid in the first place, a classic judicial Catch-22.

Justice Scalia wrote, “As to the Court’s evocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after repeatedly being killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little child and school attorneys....”

Regan, correctly I think, believes, as does Scalia, that Schempp-Lemon is a dud and that there is no real constitutional barrier to aid to religious schools for purely secular functions. The implication of Regan’s analysis of the school aid cases, then, is that there was more than just judicial analysis going on in these inconsistent decisions by which state aid was consistently denied to Catholic parochial schools. This raises the question that Regan asked earlier, “Who will watch over the guardians?”

The American Constitution and Religion provides a rather complete tour of the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence from the crèche and aid cases mentioned above to church property and employment cases to flag salute and conscientious objection cases. In some places, Regan’s approach is more summative than analytical, but then it is tough to analyze inconsistency. The book ends with a fine chapter on Western traditions of conscience which, strictly speaking, is off the book’s central topic, but I was happy to have Regan’s erudite and engaging thoughts on this matter. Like the rest of his book, it was a highly informative and enjoyable exercise.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

Freeport Sulphur

3 years 7 months ago

Professor Cafardi sheds great light, as usual.
Regarding matters of conscience, the SCOTUS and our federal judiciary, appears to me, have been at least somewhat consistent regarding free exercise and nonestablishment insofar as they seldom interfere with matters of faith, which are supra-rational, more often will recognize limits regarding matters of morality, which are, after all, supposed to be transparent to human reason. The courts, however, seem to have only an inchoate grasp of these philosophic distinctions and one can only infer their implicit use of such distinctions as they so often seem to flounder about in applying such jurisprudence?
The Church, for its part, seems to undermine its moral positions when it seeks exemptions for them as if they were discretionary matters of conscience, i.e. faith, reserved to each believing community, rather than nondiscretionary matters, i.e. accessible to and incumbent upon all persons with an upright and formed conscience? Furthermore, the Church undermines its own moral philosophy when it stretches the concept of remote material cooperation beyond what common sense and sensibilities would recognize as reasonable?
So, I wonder what Professor Cafardi and Fr Regan think about the pending case of the Little Sisters of the Poor and the arguments advanced by the Becket fund (setting aside the issue that the Church's moral position re: contraception needs various improvements).

William Atkinson

3 years 7 months ago

Individual and community freedoms will always plaque the American Constitution, as the founding fathers tried in their meanial primitive ways to come up with a government that would not accept the oppressive ways of the governments that existed at their time and age.. Religion and Speech, and Militia were forfront in their minds. The Idea that a religion would oppress the government really didn't come into their minds. Europe was having heavy handed oppression by religions, like the Inquizition, but it was government sponsored or edicted religion that they did not want, ever since the time of Christ, religions did not even consider individual freedoms to participate fully in the religious make up of the lands of Europe, the results in the following years and even today are the startups of religions that try to imitate the Christ movement trying to be free to have a meaningful relationship to a god head. After 2000 years most mainline religions still practice ideals that thwart the rights to individual beliefs and faith, especially for women. The day will come when organizations like the Supreme Court in the world will interpret freedoms to include all, especially women, and religions like the Catholic Church (Jesuits included) to view and morally accept individuals freedoms as part of their make up. That will be the day that the teachings of Christ will really become evident when these organizations accept everyone, especially women, as full equal participants of these organizations. Then you will see an ideal where governments are free of religious interference and religions will be free from government interference. The Ideal would be that the Catholic Church and the Jesuits would lead the world in this equality, but this is doubtful in that the history of the Adam and Eve being submissive creations, and Jesus's time where women were seen as 2nd to men. It becomes a magnieventual task to righten the events of one sided history and realize that individuals (souls) [women and others] are equal under the scope of all creation. Until that day and time arrives, organizations who's effort is to correct the ideals of mankind (Supreme Court) will be divided as to their efforts and make trying decisions to give rights and mores to sexes, religions, individuals, and organizations (rulings like abortion, corporations are individuals, slavery, religious rights) will always be in conflict with those ruled against.

Advertisement

This article also appeared in print, under the headline "Traditions of Conscience," in the August 4-11, 2014 issue.

Help America keep bringing you stories like this

As a frequent reader of our website, you know how important America’s voice is in the conversation about the church and the world. We can't do it without you—America Media relies on generous support from our readers. Please visit our membership page to learn how you can invest in our work by subscribing to the magazine or making a donation.

If you’re already a subscriber or donor, thank you! If you login and register your print subscription number with your account, you’ll have unlimited access to the website. Please contact us at members@americamedia.org with any questions.